they finally caught bin laden on cnn

made u look..........

AWWW!!

bin laden was on cnn?

Err the video of him and other Al Queda dude's discussing the attacks has been out for a while now. It's a tad more difficult to make the conspiracy theories up from that one!

Although it would be a mighty fine achievement if the US had falsified the entire thing. *laughs*

voice - did you read the transcript? not alot to the cnn hype really. I believe he did know what was going on, but not that he organised it, and I still think that there are undercurrents of US involvement.....

There are alot of issues with that video - isnt it
funny how all the major networks have dropped
it totally? It hasnt been shown on US tv since
people noticed all the problems with it.

http://www.rense.com/general18/ez.htm

try that and the link to the homepage if you want
some critical argument.

Oh come on guys - you can only push this argument uphill so far. Why would the US fake a video knowing that the video is going to come under the most intense inspection possible, from experts all over the world? That would be stupid.

Maybe the US networks 'dropped' it because, welll, they've already shown it, and don't need to keep showing it every day. People can go and watch it on the web easily anyway, especially in the US!

And if it was faked, it would take a fair number of highly skilled individuals, who have got a BIG incentive to leak it to the media - imagine the money you could make from that story?

Sheesh, all the 'critical' argument in those pages is picking tiny little holes, which do not 'prove' its inaccuracy.

If it IS doctored, which I admit there is a tiny possibility (most things are possible) - it would be a monumental fucking achievement.

*coughs*

voiceinsideyou - you think Lee Harvey Oswald
killed JFK too?

Of course America would never do the
unthinkable, and then cover it up well - what was
i thinking?

Heh, I just remembered all the things that are wrong with the first "moon landing" video. The US have done it before and maybe they thought since the technology is better now, then might have a better chance of coming up with something more believable.

There is no Bin Laden he is just an actor from america. they just made up a bad guy so they could start a war

Making mistakes and then covering up an internal matter via the police force for political purposes is different than something like this on the world stage. One should never point to the existence of something happening in the past as being indicative of it's presence now, especially in such a different situation.

That's just plain flawed logic, and fails to look rationally. Have you never heard of the concept of "Rational expectations"? It's like trying to predict the path of the stockmarket based on past history.... "well it rose in price last week, that's a trend - so it'll rise next week!". Just plain rubbish.

They could possible have falsified it, but it's clutching at straws. And as for touch's irrational bullshit - they don't even deserve commenting on. Christ.

Technology works both ways. Sure, the technology is out there to falsify videos, but it's also out there to prove them falsified or authentic as well, and the US would know that this would come under intense speculation.

Sheesh, people moan that the US doesn't produce evidence, so they do - and then people moan that it's falsified. Perhaps it's a stubborn inability to admit, that maybe, just maybe the US is after the right guy?

Long term trends are easier. The stockmarket has pretty much followed a 7 year cycle since the beginning. The extremity of the peaks and troughs are whats hard to pick.

I had a look at the link you posted slug, but I think I'll need a little more evidence of it being fake. Thinking about it, Bin Laden has used alot of video stuff before to try and recruit people.

rm -rf /bin/laden

Long term trends in the stockmarket are based on the economic cycle, aka the 'business cycle' which are basically oscillations between combinations of unemployment (resource capacity), inflation, growth and various other macro indicators such as interest rates, money supply etc - that work together and have naturally self correcting mechanisms that are lagged so tend to take 7-10 years to sort out.

I don't think any such trend can be established for American alleged falisfying of video tapes.

But yeah, the "rm -rf" is timely, perhaps.

did someone say conspiracy theory

voice - the point of creating a doctored video is -
most people believe what they see, they don't look any further, this was illustrated when the attacks first occured, and bin laden was named as the person behind it - everybody (90% at least) took it as true because the 'news' said so.....therby druming up polictal support for the US administration to step into conflict....
Personally, as i said before i don't think bin laden is without knowledge or guilt in this case, but I'll also bet there are greater forces at work here than him, and he may well turn out to be pawn in a much bigger game. Surely you can see this too?

Yes, but the US knows that as well as the 'most people' that believe what they see, there are significant number of people who will analyse it and kick up a stink. It's not uncommon for the minoirty to dictate the direction of the majority, so if the conspiracy theorists are successful, it could easily create a backlash against the US. The US knwos it cannot silence all critics, so don't think would be stupid enough to release a falsified video.

You allude to some 'greater force'. Well, that's all very well and good, to defend your case by making vague statements about other forces, but does not really need to any kind of conclusive argument. What 'bigger game' exactly? Sure, Osama is a pawn in the bigger game that is worldwide terrorism of which Al Queda is only a small part of in terms of 'numbers' of recruits. However, this doesn't mean he is a less worthy target for apprehension.

How can you say "surely you can see this too" without actually llustrating what these greater things actually are? It's a fallacy to make statements such as "surely..." as a basis of your argument - it doesn't lead to any kind of rational discussion. I don't make a a habit of "seeing things" without proof of their existence.

Given that you yourself say that "i don't think bin laden is without knowledge or guilt" - does that not mean that the US was justified in drumming up political support for their cause? In fact they were quite restrained at the start of the event - I was watching CNN, BBC etc a fuck of a lot at that time The administration took much time to start pointing the finger - and when they did statements were made such as "it looks likely that...". it wasn't until the US had found the Arabic flight manuals, had traced calls back to known Al Queda operatives, and people with links to bin Laden that the US said they were sure. I believe that the video is authentic - and that does not make me a sheep. If you choose not to believe it - that's fine, but you'd better have some decent reasoning, rather than the dodgy websites chock to the brim with excessive conspiracy theories that appear to be designed to fulfill someone's blatant anti-US agenda, with little regard for balanced argument or sensible discussion.

VIU, get a shorter name for fucks sake. I was taking the piss. To understand the reason why is first, and how is second. Why, the yanks have been backing Israel, this pisses off the arabs. Fair enuff, if the Aussies claimed the North Shore and the Yanks helped them do it you'd be pissed off too. Hows the goody, Al Qaeda isn't an army it's just a group of like minded people helping each other achieve their goals. They don't really hang out together other than the training camps that they attend once then they go off and live their life until they are needed. Thsi is where the problem lies for the Yanks how on earth are they gonna find everyone with no records of who they are or where theyt are from. as for Sammy Bins they are not gonna find this guy. He wants to be a martyr so if he kills himself gets himself buried somewhere where no-one will find him, he will become a mythic figure to the arabs and there will be sitings to keep the yanks busy looking for him

lmao *gives everyone a calming pill*

"mythic figure"? Nice. *laughs*

Just call me "Voice" - everyone else does. No need to resort to insulting my nickname, n'est-ce pas?

Some of what you say is true - and I agree with you that it is a difficult task for the US , or 'yanks' as you so delightfully refer to them as. Sure, Al Queda is fragmented. Does this mean the US shoud just give up and let them roam free, to potentially launch more attacks? Well, no - not if the US thinks they are a threat. As hard as it might be, I think it is wise fo the US to at least 'try' and destroy what they can of Al Queda. I agree that finding Osama is nigh on impossible too - and most likely they will never know if he's dead or alive. The US aren't stupid - and they realise this too, which is why they're working to destory the infrastructure that supports the completion of Osama's objectives - so even if he is in hiding he cannot do much, so to speak.

You are speaking poohs, even if he is in hiding he can't do much, what? He has been on the 10 most wanted list for years but this didn't stop him from killing 18 yanks in Somalia, blowing up a Navy ship off the coast of Yemen, oh and that little ting on 9/11. The yanks are arrogant, terrorism is nothing new but the yanks didn't care before because it wasn't them dieing. They have been telling the Israelis for years not to retaliate when suicide bombers kill civilians there but it is a different story for them. You cannot stop terrorists. All it takes is one man of conviction to blow shit up. The Taliban looked after Sammy Bins because he is a well respected cleric of the Muslim faith not because they shared his convcictions. No one likes to be told what to do by anyone let alone the yanks, this wasn't a problem until 9/11. The taliban did the right thing they stood up for there beliefs they had told the yanks before that they will not give him up so they will not do it now either, it's a respect ting. Insulting your nickname I said it was long. please show some respect here or I won't play anymore

Hey VIU I gots to go home now but you go meditate on CNN for the weekend, and get back to me ok I await your informed and intellectual answer on Monday, and remember no name calling.

One more ting before I go, you were saying that the yanks were slow to assign guilt, what? I was watching CNN as well and they were saying all day that it was prolly Sammy Bins. I understand that CNN is not the Govt but they do spread the seeds. The day after the event Sammy Bins was the most hated man in America, sowing seeds for his death and a big money making war. The proof was not really very important because the guilt had already been dealt. Also Sammy Bins would have claimed the bombing anyway terrorists do that you know, it's the most important part they do terrible tings to show the world their plight. So when your back maybe you should apologise to Big daddy.

Sam - i thought they said "freemasons".

hahahaha dats good, I likes

You're just repeating the ame point - and if you /read/ my post you'd note I did not disagree with what you wee saying. I agreed that it would hard to catch him - my point was that that does not mean you shouldn't try. I'm yet to see you rationally dispute that statement.

Answer me this: Should the US let the terrorists do what they want, just because it'll be hard to catch them?

That's what you appear to be saying by criticising the US chasing the terrorists.

Of course the US care more when terrorists are killing US people. Incidentally, I think you forget a little 'Kosovo'. There weren't US people getting killed there, and the US stepped in. Whether or not that was right or wrong of the US - they were acting in teh interest of other people, not just themselves. An there's no significant oil in Yugoslavia to blame either.

Osama a 'well respected cleric'? Show me the evidence of that. Everything I've read says that his radical views have been disavowed my leaders in the muslim faith. Please, point me to some evidence and I'd be happy to read it.

Indeed - you admit the flaw in your point yourself by saying CNN is not the government. The government do not take their leads from CNN. Undoubtedly CNN tkae their leads from the government but that's around the other way. The US did not go after Osama until they had evidence. They're just not that stupid.

Would you put claim to a bombing if your entire country is going to be the target of the most powerful and ruthless military in the world? I think even terrorists become rational when faced with that!

Incidentally, referring to Osama Bin Laden as "Sammy bins" is pretty disrespectful, don't you think?

And please, illustrate to me why I should 'apologise' to anyone. Why would I need to apologise because I have a different opinion? I'm a tad puzzled by that one.

pfft if what u wrote was legable to the little people... maybe then they'd read it!
ahh i love it how u get so feisty!
yes, you're right. If you are expressing your opinion you shouldn't need to apologise. If however, expressing ur opinions is squashing other peep's opinions, that's a punishable offence

Heeeheeee, it looks like I'm feisty, sure. Really, I'm just sitting here, calm as - typing this shit. It looks like I'm angry, or annoyed - but I am not. It is rather humourous watching defensive reactions, and watching some people make unsubstantiated statements that they can't back up.

As for the legibility of my writing, apart from the typos and odd missed letter (sorry about that guys), if you can't understand what I write...
a) go to fucking school
b) get a dictionary

Nothing of what I write is particularly complicated to someone of average intelligence, and I could write a lot more anally, believe me. I write in no more complex language than does the 'mass media', and they're supposed to be out there for the 'little people' too I imagine - it's part of their core readership.

The only reason I'd be squashing another's opinion is if they don't have the evidence, backbone or gall to back up their statements with reasoning. In that case - that person is just 'talking crap', and it's their own fault if they feel squashed.

I think that you aren't really thinking about what is being said you are just being a touch arrogant. Your just refuting everything said regardless this does take the fun out it don't you think? I don't feel that either of your last 2 posts really deserves an answer, as if you think about it the answers are very obvious. And if your as intellectual as you think you are it will become apparent. Ask me if you still can't get it

Ahh, the old "I'm better than you" strategy, where one refuses to debate any longer, claiming that the answer is 'obvious'. A clear fallacy.

Of course, this just demonstrates that you are either too lazy to back up your remarks with good reasoning, or can't do it. What a shame!

And as for arrogance, when you refuse to discuss my last two posts, believing they don't 'deserve' an answer - who does that imply is arrogant? You do the math. *smile*

At least I credited your posts with a decent length opinion that took me time to write and think about.

And Aims - well she's just got a pathetic Internet-grudge with me. Don't mind her.

You aren't debating.
Kosovo -- Americans as part of Un forces
Sammi Bins -- Not respected by you doesn't mean he isn't respected in the Middle East, please try not to believe the Yanks spin
9/11 Bombing was a success -- The yanks bomb the middle east creates more pissed off Arabs to join the Mujaheddin. you don't seem to understand the whole idea of being a Muslim Extremist everyone who dies goes to Allah, you know the 72 virgins

Your not debating
Kosovo -- Us Forces as part of the UN
Sammi Bins -- Because the Tv says he is hated by all doesn't mean he has no following in the Middle East. Religious reasons is why he is in Afghanistan.
Getting attacked by the yanks was just what the doctor ordered. Did you see the massive influx of supporters from Pakistan, Syria, Saudi Arabia and even the USA after the Yanks started bombing Afghanistan.
Nice attack on Aims -- You really came off smart with that one, just because you don't agree with someone don't mean they be talking out their ass.
Do you want me to start posting quotes to justify all my comments? If so could you do the same as I'm getting bored pointing things out to you

Sorry bout the double up my puter is fucked

Please stop name calling VIU, lazy, pathetic, it's rather immature

heh touch - a comment from true islamists i
saw said that 72 virgins thing isnt true - thats
just more spin

and what about JFK voiceinsideyou? you didnt
bother to try and refute that - is that in the "too
hard" basket? - or do you really believe in the
"magic bullet" theory?

1/ either you beleive Oswald was the only
shooter, and therefore show an incredible
amount of faith in unbelievable US spin

or

2/ admit that US does what US think is best for
the country, reguardless of the morality, so long
as the implied actions were caused by "bad
men" which of course, will be backed up by
fabricated evidence, and which is never to be
admited to.

if you believe 2, then you yourself have not
provided any clear rationalisation for your notion
that US would not kill its own for the greater
good in the "war on terrorism". Nice side
stepping.

Mind you, if you really are smart, and not just
inteligent, perhaps you can come up with an
explanation for cattle mutilations - but i wont
hold my breath - you might have to admit to
something which you dont want to believe.

No, I did not deal with it directly because I admit that I don't know a 'lot' about the JFK 'assasination'. However, I would tend to agree that there was much more to it than the US revealed and has admitted to. That's not to say that I believe in any particular one of the number of conspiracy theories out there. Perhaps the US wanted top give a quick answer to the country to keep faith in the government - I don't know.

As I have re-iterated several billion times I do not like the US's policy, in general. I agree that it has many flaws and the US has been 'guilty' of doing what is best for the US, and no-one else. That's rational. What this particular thread was supposed to be about (to some degree) was whether the bin Laden video was fabricated. Regardless of thenother arguments, I was trying to illustrate that it would be very difficult for the US to do so, and believe it could get away with it with noone noticing - especially given the amount of analysis it would come under.

What I did point out is that the past should not be used as a reliable indicator to the future. One should deal with things in the forward looking perspective, and deal with things on a one by one basis.

I also mentioned that an internal matter was different than an external matter such as this. In a number of ways. Your reasoning is that of the 'once a criminal
- always a criminal' attitude. Perhaps there's some truth to it, but I choose not to believe that. That does not make me ignorant, as you seem to want to paint me. That makes me accept different things than you do, which is fine. I am not 'unsmart' just because I disagree with you.

I never asserted that the US would not kill its own for the greater good. Far from it. As soon as you send troops into a battle zone you're killing your own for the greater good in one way or another. That's basically the whole basis behind going to war, as far as I can tell. Just depends what your definition of the 'greater good' is. War is in itself 'immoral' if you want to throw down the morality line. It involves killing people for what each side believes is the 'greater good'.

What are you talking about cattle mutilations for? I'm not entirely sure where you're going with that one. Sorry, perhaps I'm not catching your line of argument. Or maybe I'm slow!

touch: I believe you have a lack of understanding as to what name calling is. Read, and you will see that I presented you with two choices. One was that you don't reply to my lengthy posts, which would imply you may be 'lazy'. Fair enough /possibility/ if you ask me. The second was that you didn't have any backup for your points. You got to choose your own place amongst those two options - you clearly chose the 'lazy' one. There wa sno name calling, just 'suggestion'.

"has a pathetic internet-grudge" was the other alleged 'name calling' you refer to. Note here the use of the English language (refer 3rd form English textbook). The 'pathetic' related to the words "internet-grudge" not to Aims, hence me using the word directly prior. This means I was implying the /internet-grudge/ was pathetic, not Aims herself. Quite simple really isn't it?

voiceinsideyou : "Regardless of thenother
arguments, I was trying to illustrate that it would
be very difficult for the US to do so, and believe it
could get away with it with noone noticing -
especially given the amount of analysis it would
come under."

It hasnt gone unnoticed at all. The analysis is
ongoing.

"Your reasoning is that of the 'once a criminal
- always a criminal' attitude. Perhaps there's
some truth to it, but I choose not to believe that."

here you switch from rational argument to blind
faith, even where there appears to be evidence
to the contrary, without providing substantiation.
Strange for someone so obsessed with
evidence and analysis

"What I did point out is that the past should not
be used as a reliable indicator to the future. One
should deal with things in the forward looking
perspective, and deal with things on a one by
one basis."

So you are telling me that trends amount to
worthless information? "Reliable indicator" is
not the issue - it isnt evidence by itself, but does
suggest ability to repeat a crime. Are you of the
mind that a rape criminal be treated the same
on a second offence?

If you have noticed, i actualy havent provided a
stance of belief for the proposition that the video
is faked/altered/real. That is because i havent
formed one yet. My view is just to remain open
minded, until such time as i might see evidence
from the US which actualy proves OBL
involvement - which, at this stage, seems very
circumstantial. I am however, leaning to the
belief that the video is fudged in some manner.
The latest analysis seeming to point to
differences in facial shape from the person in
the video to that of OBL. However, my decision
will ultimately be made up from evidence, not
from any sort of "faith", thats for sure.

Sure, Osama doesnt appear to a saint (pardon
the religious term), but to take any "evidence"
from the US against him (or indeed any
individual or country), without thought for
evidence to the contrary, makes me feel
uncomfortable about your "faith" in the ultimate
in westernised civilisation.

No - you interpreted what I meant wrong at the top of your post. I was saying that the US obviously would clearly realise the video would come under intense scrutiny - so they would not get away with a falsified video. I was implying the US would not be stupid enough to release a video that was falsified, as it would be easy to prove it falsified. Nothing I have seen or read yet has established anything fundamentally wrong with the video.

You also misunderstand what I was saying when I said "I choose not to believe that". I am saying that I choose to believe the that US and 'criminals' CAN change their behavious, so implying that I believe it is possible that the US does not engage in the kind of crap that was involved in the JFK assasination. I am keeping an open mind too - rather than assuming that since they did it once they are definitely going to do it again. Of course, it is possible, but I was merely saying that I'd like to think it is possible that a country's practices could change. There is much evidence of this happening in the past, previously corrupt countries becoming hostile to fraud and corruption, Russia becoming hospitable with the West. I was just trying to say that I believe that that just because a crime was committed in the past does not IMPLY that it will happen in the future. Of course one must consider than possibility, for exmaple when dealing with racists, and the US, but it does not prove a point to say "well they did X in the past, so they must have done X now".

That's not blind faith.

'Trends' are not worthless, but they are not a reliable predicting rule for the future, especially when humans are involved. Try predicting the stockmarket based on past history - it's not a rational way of forming expectations. Trends are man's way of establishing causality between events - and most of the time it is a fallacy to use raw trends to predict the future without taking into account other factors.

I too stay open-minded. As you may have read, I have admitted that it is possiuble that the video is falsified, but I stand by my statement that I don't think the US would be that stupid to do that.

I'm sick of you assuming that I have blind faith. Does the very fact that I have read much of various opinions and criticisms of the video yet still believe it is legitimate indicate I do not have 'blind' faith? Just because I defend the US on this particualr issues does not mean I trust everything that comes out of their mouth. You make big assumptions on my opinions if you assume that - you appear to lump me with the rest of the world backing the US that just reads the paper and doesn't look elsewhere. Don't stereotype me, for you know not of what you judge.

I have considered the evidence to the contrary, as you put it, and I don't believe it anywhere near as circumstantial as the evidence that incriminates him. You may choose to disagree, and that's fine - but don't accuse me of having 'blind faith' merely because I disagree with you.

That would be like me accusing you of having blind faith in the notion that the US /always/ is doing something evil, or immoral. I have not done this, you should note.

VIU:

Twice you make the claim that for US to fake or
doctor a video, when it will come under extreme
scrutiny, it must be "stupid". Where is your logic
for that? Do you equate stupidity with criminal
behaivours? Intelligence with high moral fibre?

"'Trends' are not worthless, but they are not a
reliable predicting rule for the future, especially
when humans are involved."

Who is making predictions here? - we are
analysing past events in order to make a
decision on culpability of the US.

"but don't accuse me of having 'blind faith'
merely because I disagree with you."

thats pure fabrication - and you know it

" Don't stereotype me, for you know not of what
you judge. "

you have provided plenty of information in this
thread and others to form a profile of your
character. Besides, i think you will find i did not
judge your character at anytime, just the basis of
your argument. You have provided your own
stereotype for me to associate you with, to which
i do not think you belong.

""Your reasoning is that of the 'once a criminal
- always a criminal' attitude. Perhaps there's
some truth to it, but I choose not to believe that."

what about that statement is not faith? You
admit to possible evidence to the contrary, but
discredit it totally on some belief system you
have rather than any consideration of facts.
Besides, this refers to your decision making
capacity, not your trust in any government.

Your intellectual musings do little to sway me
from the obvious nature of your argumentitive
style, which is flawed from the outset by the very
issue you take about "unsubstantiated
statements".

slug: And now you make the mistake of inferring an entire personality from some posts on a www board? That's your prerogative, mate - but wrong.

What do you think I am calling "stupid"? I am saying the US would be 'stupid' to doctor a video, because they'd get caught. That makes no reference to any link betweemn criminal behaviour and stupidity. You're reading more into what I was saying than is there, to suit your own prefabricated impression of my stance on such issues.

Okay, sure we're not making predictions, but you're still using the past as evidence for the guilt of the US in the current. It's a similar concept - that because they've done it once - they must have done it again. That's not necessarily true - is my point.

I just explained above why it's not 'blind' faith. At the end of the day we all have to take
'faith' in something don't we? You have to get your information and beliefs from somewhere and we as humans cannot witness them all first hand and establihs the truth in our own mind. I believe some of what the US says, I don't believe other stuff. I read various opinions of what's happened and make my own decisions as to what I think is most likely. That is NOT blind faith. Blind faith is accepting the first opinion you read as the truth. As I have tried to explain - I have not done that.

We all have to make judgement calls at some point. The definition of 'evidence' or 'fact' is different to you and I based on what and whom we trust when we read stuff. The chain of information flow is so long that one cannot find out verified first hand accounts easily - so one is forced to choose what they believe. You choose to believe in a larger possibility that the video is faked than do I. You choose to believe the US is presently likely to have falsified the video as they have misled their country and the world in prior occasions. We all make judgement calls based on what we have read and taken in. That doesn't make either one of us a lesser person. None of us can read everything and weigh up every piece of evidence. I have spent a bit of time reading various opinions, I have formed an opinion and you're slagging it off by saying it's just based on blind faith, and refusing to believe that I could possibly have considered other facts.

That's not fair is it? What makes what you 'believe' better than what I 'believe'? Neither of our beliefs is harming anyone else.

You say I discredit it based on a belief system. Where do you get that impression? How do you know what I have and haven't read and considered? You're making assumptions to say that - and, quite frankly - the assumptions are incorrect.

I think our definitions of 'unsubstantiated statements' are perhaps different. I was just commenting on touch's "bin laden was made up my the US" claim - which I did not realise was a joke at the time, given the prior serious nature of the discussion, and that touch didn't use emoticons to indicate the way that it was intended.

You have implicitly judged my character many times, and you know it, too. As for stereotypes - well, I think you should be careful before dropping me in any one basket.

Do you want me to admit that you're better than me, because you don't agree with me?
Because you may have possibly read more than me? Because you came to a different conclusion to me?
Because in general, I like the US and what it's done for the world (overall)?

I think we're both guilty here of misunderstanding what the other means, and assuming things based on inadequate information - perhaps reliant on stereotyping to fill in the gaps.

Or perhaps I'm the dumbass you seem to think I am? I, in fact, had respect for your argument and your opinions until you started to attack my ability to reason. Now I doubt my initial reaction. That's a shame.

Oh dear It's not just me, but you still haven't replied top my posts other than to excuse your name calling.

*cracks out his bottle of chill pills*

On that note I'm looking into registering a charitable trust called
"E For Middle East Peace"

Wadda ya all reckon? Could be a goer?
I mean Arafat looks like hes at the wrong end of a come down on the best of days so I think it would be just marvelous.

Shit what do you know about it cauld? That kind of attitude is repelent to such champions of intellect such as us of the biggie forum. How insulting and disrespectful to Yasser Arafat to suggest that he has had too many pills.

VIU isn't here so I thought I'd be mean for him, Oh I didn't call you any names, I'm just not as good as her. have a wikkid weekend cauld, cool post,
dis was just jokes

touch: Lucky I read the second paragraph... cos I was about to send a Palistinian Youth around to blow up your house!

It's just that poor old Arafat looks like he hasn't seen a razor or a shower in years.

It's amazing the sort of death and destruction that religion wreaks on our world.

As my email sig. line says

"Those who would beleive absurdities, commit attrocities."
Voltaire

Yeah man I've got Voltaire on my computer I play it all the time, It's a cool card game to play by yourself when you got nuffin to say on biggie, On a more serious note religion has killed more people than cancer

Okay guys, I\'ve chilled. A few days of holiday can do that for ya. I blame general stress.

touch: Sorry man, if you took what I said as name calling - I apologise. I did not mean to insult.

And I agree that religion has killed more people than cancer. Such a shame that something with so much promise (at its heart) can go so wrong sometimes.

ummm just call me picky then.

Look at it this way, it annoys me when a history
doco or book states something like \"50,000
years ago man crossed the landbridge to the
americas....\" or some shite.

Maybe its the absolutes im grappleing with, i will
try and resist.

All things considered, im the type of person who
would like such statements as above prefixed
with some sort of \"To the best of our knowledge,
we figure that....\".

To much of what is \"fact\" one day, turns out to be
B.S. the next day, or the next century for that
matter. Im a devils advocate for open
mindedness heh.

And just in the spirit of the season, i wish peace
and goodwill for all this year.



D

cut n pasted this from an alternative news site. what do you make of it?

Right now, one of the biggest stories in the history of our country is unfolding - the discovery of an Israeli spy and drug ring that had wiretapped into the FBI, DEA, and probably the White House itself - and there's nothing but dead silence in the national media and on the net! How can that be? How can that possibly be? If a huge Islamic spy ring had been discovered, that's ALL we'd be hearing about.
-- Author unknown

america censoring media!!

Yeah, the US have been censoring media for far too long, it\'s actually pretty fucking disgusting really. I haven\'t heard about that story in particular, but I\'ve been following the BBC and the Guardian sporadically, and albawaba.com (who do some more general Middle-East stuff). I\'m not sure how indepemdent any of them really are, but they feel more diverse than the American media (whom I also read).

I think in these times of war you have to epxect propaganda to be trounced out on both sides of the fence. The West, unfortunately, is nowhere near immune to that.

Where\'s that story from sam? I\'d like to read the site, and see what it\'s like.

i dont know where sam got his from, but you can
catch the general idea at:
http://www.rense.com/Datapages/Israeldata.ht
ml

Cool, cheers man. Will add to my \"to read\" Favourites list. On holiday at the moment, but will read up when I get home in a few days probably....

A large part of the problem is that the \'media\' is a self-censoring entity, to a large degree. They need to elicit responses from their audience that synchronise with that audience\'s values, so a bit of creative editing and some functional silences punctuate everything they give us. They all need an angle, and it just so happens that the government\'s is a very popular one.

hang on, I should have put that better....
we censor the media. you and me team up with the newpapers to decide what they say. the government doesn\'t need to do much work at all.

its from http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/

phenomenal insight into the world of conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11.

at the end of the day we'll probably never know the true facts, but america's manipulation of the media could skew any worldwide event and make people believe what tv tells them to believe

do u actually think they will catch bin laden alive?
even if they did islam extremists would just kidnap people and try and do exchange deals. the us would only want him dead not alive

I don\'t think they\'ll get him, but I think they should at least try. Kinda needle in a haystack stuff eh?

I\'m not sure about the kidnap/exchange stuff really, the US is pretty strict with its \"do not negotiate with terrorists\" line. I suppose it has never really been tested with their own people though.